You may be wondering why I haven’t written since the Tuesday
roundtable on the Georgetown contract.
The reason is that I’ve sent a letter to the editor at the Post
and am waiting to hear if it will be published, so I can’t repeat the same
message here in my blog. In the
meantime, here is the link to the video from the Tuesday event: http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5144. There were more than twenty witnesses, myself
included (on behalf of the DD Council). And,
to keep you up to date, an article in today’s Post: https://wapo.st/2ZfvHZC.
I’d like to use my soapbox today, then, to make a couple of
broader points about the way in which the relationship between DDS and the disability
community is evolving.
First, to Andy Reese:
I believe you were sincere in the comment you submitted on July 9 (see comments
section on my blog post, “Andy, You Need a Plan” below or click here: https://www.ddinwdc.com/2019/07/andy-you-need-plan.html#comment-form). I think you truly believe that the combination
of HCBS Advisory Committee, Supporting Families Community of Practice, public
Family Support Council, Project Action! and monthly person-centered
organization meetings provides ample opportunity for input to DDS decision
making. I understand the point you’re
making, but I do not agree, for these reasons:
1)
The conclusion of the Evans case (look in the
blog archive over to the right and read “Where We’ve Come From,” 9/25/14 and “Big
Developments in the New Year,” 1/9/17) in January 2017 was a golden, and
necessary, opportunity for DDS to spell out its proposed post-Evans vision and
to invite a dialogue on future strategy with the advocacy community that had
done so much to help achieve that important milestone. Two and a half years later, this hasn’t happened,
and none of the meetings you’ve cited pertains to the strategic direction DDS
is taking.
2)
Such a strategic dialogue – hopefully rich with data
about the size and needs of the D.C. population with development disabilities –
would have brought creativity and energy to shaping the future and also set the
stage for new breakthroughs. It also
would have established a shared perspective for discussion of the types of individual
issues such as housing, contributions to costs and now, health care issues that
DDS is rolling out now with little context or connection. It’s not too late, though, for this dialogue
to take place.
3)
Taken on their own, the array of individual
meetings you point to has its own set of inherent problems:
a) They are often very
lengthy, and a person would have to attend each and every one of them to stay
aware - no one has time for all that;
b) Many of the discussions
are highly redundant “listening sessions” and provide little clarity as to what
is going to be done with the comments provided;
c) Often the meetings are filled
with elusive technocratic jargon that anyone outside (and many inside) the
bureaucracy can’t hope to understand fully.
d) Finally, many of us doubt
the effectiveness, and are concerned about the consequences, of candid
discussion in sessions with operational, as opposed to policy-setting, DDS
staff.
Now, to my colleagues in the local advocacy community: In my most recent blog post, you got the
sense that I do not believe “anything goes” with respect to tactics when we’re
trying to effect change. Specifically:
1)
Keep it local.
Although my blog centers on developmental disability issues, I never lose
sight of the fact that we’re operating in the District of Columbia, whose
democratic participation on the national stage is limited. In fact, I would be tempted to add a third “D”
for democracy to the title of my blog, and I hope none of my readers are happy
to tolerate the denial of our right to determine our own future (and get voting
representation in the House and Senate). Read my last blog post on this, and let’s keep
it local (meaning D.C. only). Enough
said.
2)
Respect roles and boundaries. I worked in government for over
three decades, and I respect the roles of people who are trying to make a
difference and running large and complicated programs. Andy Reese’s job as director of D.C.’s
Department on Disability Services is an important one to which he brings
integrity and dedication. Let’s not
immediately lord it over him by appealing to the mayor over his head. Also, raising the specter of a return to
court oversight is not a prospect that should be raised lightly.
3)
Don’t exaggerate or distort. When government witnesses testify, they raise
their right hands and swear to tell the whole truth. The same is not required of other witnesses,
but we need to hold ourselves to the same standard and ensure we are not overstating
the case or stretching the facts.
4)
“I got mine” is not a solid basis for
advocacy. Many of my readers receive, or
have family members receiving, services in D.C.
Others do not, and wish they did.
D.C. services don’t reach everyone they should, as we all know (another
reason for a strategic dialogue!), so please remember, when you advocate don’t
just talk about protecting what you’ve got.
There’s more at stake.
Some of what I’m writing in my blog lately is making me less
popular, but I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. These are difficult subjects and we need to
wrestle with them together. I do think,
though, that we owe it to ourselves and to one another to be more reflective
and to do a better job of remembering we’re in this together.
Have a good weekend.
